16.2 - 1808 E Cesar Chavez St - Photos from owner — original pdf
Backup
Historic Landmark Commission Homepage
Upcoming meetings
Operations Committee Meeting - Room 1203
16.a - 1808 E Cesar Chavez St - public comment — original pdf
Backup
16.b - 1808 E Cesar Chavez St - public comments — original pdf
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Holly Neighbors Sunday, May 3, 2026 9:07 PM Historic Preservation Office; Holly Neighborhood Association Board Case # PR 2026-040403; 1808 Cesar Chavez, 'Weather Up' property You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of the Holly Neighborhood Association on the case number above, regarding the property at 1808 Chavez. This home most recently held the Weather Up bar, but has sat vacant for several years. The Historic Landmark Commission is set to hear the application for demolition on this Tuesday, May 8. We would request a delay in order to more fully inform neighbors of the application and the history of the house, give them an opportunity to address the Commission. The staff notes that the application times out in July. Your consideration of the neighbor's interest in the property would be greatly appreciated. Sandra Boone, President Holly Neighborhood Association Bringing old and new together. CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 1 Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Sarah Arvey Tuesday, May 5, 2026 9:32 AM Historic Preservation Office 1808 E Cesar Chavez You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution I'm utterly opposed to the demolition of 1808 Cesar Chavez, which most recently housed WeatherUp bar. This property is identified by the Landmark Commission as being built in the 1930s, and originally housed a barber shop and beauty salon for many years. The property was identified by the 2016 East Austin Historic Resource Survey as eligible as a City of Austin Landmark. Developers continue to bulldoze through East Austin, and there is very little opportunity for residents to take action. While the Preservation Austin might not deem this building important, it is critical that local residents have a say in what happens to their neighborhood. I truly dislike the fact that all I can do is write this email. I have wanted to speak when attending online meetings/hearings and there is no way for attendees to voice their opinions in this forum. This is truly unfortunate. Thank you. Sarah Arvey -- …
16.c - 1808 E Cesar Chavez St - public comment — original pdf
Backup
17.2 - 403 Orchard St - OWANA Letter — original pdf
Steering Committee Members: Stephen L. Amos, Chair Mark Ashby, Jeff Callahan, Scott Campbell, Marc Carlson, Hunter Coleman, Evelyn Fujimoto, Adrienne Goldsberry, Nick Mehl, William Osborn, Charlie Rice, Paul Shattuck, Shawn Shillington April 30, 2026 Historic Landmark Commission 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive Austin, TX 78752 Re: DA-2026-038798 - 403 Orchard Street DA-2026-038813 -1208 West 4th Street Dear Chair Heimsath and HLC Commissioners, The Old West Austin Neighborhood Association (OWANA) Zoning Committee recently met with the applicant regarding the proposed demolition of the structures at 403 Orchard Street and 1208 West 4th Street. OWANA was first notified of this request on Tuesday, April 28, and met with the applicant thereafter on Thursday, April 30. At the time of the meeting, the applicant was able to provide only limited details regarding both the historical significance of either structure and any future plans for the site. During our discussion, we emphasized the importance of preserving contributing structures within the district, as the cumulative loss of such buildings could jeopardize the district’s historic designation. Based on our understanding, the structures appear to be in good condition. We strongly encourage allowing additional time for staff to conduct further archival research, which may reveal information supporting potential landmark designations. The 2025 Downtown Austin historic resource survey lists 403 Orchard Street as a high priority and eligible for the National Register as an individual resource. If the findings do not yield criteria to meet the metrics of nomination, OWANA recommends that the applicant make a genuine effort to relocate and financially fund expenses related to the relocation of these structures. Supporting and maintaining the integrity of our National Historic District is of great importance to OWANA. Given the limited information and limited amount of time currently available before the May 6th Landmark Commission meeting, OWANA supports a Landmark Commission initiated postponement of both demolition cases, 403 Orchard Street and 1208 West 4th Street, to allow for a more thorough understanding of the structures and site. We hope the applicant will agree that this is a prudent and necessary step in the process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stephen L. Amos Chair Old West Austin Neighborhood Association, Inc. OWANA
17.3 - 403 Orchard St - presentation — original pdf
403 Orchard Street Historic Landmark Commission Item 17: DA-2026-038798 May 6, 2026 1 Demolition Application 2 Proximity: Downtown Austin Historic Resources Survey 3 Proximity: Local Historic Districts 4 Proximity: National Register Historic District Texas Historic Sites Atlas 5 Landmark Designation Criteria LDC 25-2-352: 1. years ago; and The property must be 50 years old and must represent a period of significance of at least 50 2. The property must retain a high degree of integrity, as defined by the National Register of Historic Places, that clearly conveys its historical significance and does not include an addition or alteration which has significantly compromised its integrity; and 3. Demonstrates significance in at least two of the following categories: • Architecture • Historical Associations • Archaeology • Community Value • Landscape Feature 6 Staff Report and Recommendation 7 Request We respectfully request staff recommendation for the requested total demolition of the structure located at 403 Orchard Street and release of the demolition permit upon receipt of a City of Austin Documentation Package. 8 9 i. Architecture ARCHITECURE CRITERIA: Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a recognized architectural style, type, or method of construction; × Exemplifies technological innovation in design or construction; Displays high artistic value in representing ethnic or folk art, architecture, or construction; × Represents a rare example of an architectural style in the city; × Serves as an outstanding example of the work of an architect, builder, or artisan who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; × Possesses cultural, historical, or architectural value as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian or vernacular structure; or × Represents an architectural curiosity or one-of-a-kind building. HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY: • 1917 Single-Family House • National Folk stylistic influence • No alterations noted • Not eligible for local historic district designation • Individually eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) designation 10 Landmark Designation Criteria ii. Historical Associations. institutions, The property has long-standing significant associations with persons, groups, businesses, or events of historic importance which contributed significantly to the history of the city, state, or nation; or represents a significant portrayal of the cultural practices or the way of life of a definable group of people in a historic time. • Occupants from 1920-1970: • 1920: Tidwell, A.D. • 1927: W.P. Payne • 1935: I.A. Payne & W.P. Payne • 1940: Mrs. M.A. Payne • 1944: …
18.2 - 1208 W 4th St - OWANA Letter — original pdf
Steering Committee Members: Stephen L. Amos, Chair Mark Ashby, Jeff Callahan, Scott Campbell, Marc Carlson, Hunter Coleman, Evelyn Fujimoto, Adrienne Goldsberry, Nick Mehl, William Osborn, Charlie Rice, Paul Shattuck, Shawn Shillington April 30, 2026 Historic Landmark Commission 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive Austin, TX 78752 Re: DA-2026-038798 - 403 Orchard Street DA-2026-038813 -1208 West 4th Street Dear Chair Heimsath and HLC Commissioners, The Old West Austin Neighborhood Association (OWANA) Zoning Committee recently met with the applicant regarding the proposed demolition of the structures at 403 Orchard Street and 1208 West 4th Street. OWANA was first notified of this request on Tuesday, April 28, and met with the applicant thereafter on Thursday, April 30. At the time of the meeting, the applicant was able to provide only limited details regarding both the historical significance of either structure and any future plans for the site. During our discussion, we emphasized the importance of preserving contributing structures within the district, as the cumulative loss of such buildings could jeopardize the district’s historic designation. Based on our understanding, the structures appear to be in good condition. We strongly encourage allowing additional time for staff to conduct further archival research, which may reveal information supporting potential landmark designations. The 2025 Downtown Austin historic resource survey lists 403 Orchard Street as a high priority and eligible for the National Register as an individual resource. If the findings do not yield criteria to meet the metrics of nomination, OWANA recommends that the applicant make a genuine effort to relocate and financially fund expenses related to the relocation of these structures. Supporting and maintaining the integrity of our National Historic District is of great importance to OWANA. Given the limited information and limited amount of time currently available before the May 6th Landmark Commission meeting, OWANA supports a Landmark Commission initiated postponement of both demolition cases, 403 Orchard Street and 1208 West 4th Street, to allow for a more thorough understanding of the structures and site. We hope the applicant will agree that this is a prudent and necessary step in the process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stephen L. Amos Chair Old West Austin Neighborhood Association, Inc. OWANA
18.3 - 1208 W 4th St - presentation — original pdf
1208 W. 4th Street Historic Landmark Commission Item 18: DA-2026-038813 May 6, 2026 1 Demolition Application 2 Proximity: Downtown Austin Historic Resources Survey 3 Proximity: Local Historic Districts 4 Proximity: National Register Historic District Texas Historic Sites Atlas 5 1960 Sanborn Map 6 Landmark Designation Criteria LDC 25-2-352: 1. years ago; and The property must be 50 years old and must represent a period of significance of at least 50 2. The property must retain a high degree of integrity, as defined by the National Register of Historic Places, that clearly conveys its historical significance and does not include an addition or alteration which has significantly compromised its integrity; and 3. Demonstrates significance in at least two of the following categories: • Architecture • Historical Associations • Archaeology • Community Value • Landscape Feature 7 i. Architecture ARCHITECURE CRITERIA: Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a recognized architectural style, type, or method of construction; Exemplifies technological innovation in design or construction; × Displays high artistic value in representing ethnic or folk art, architecture, or construction; × Represents a rare example of an architectural style in the city; × Serves as an outstanding example of the work of an architect, builder, or artisan who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; × Possesses cultural, historical, or architectural value as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian or vernacular structure; or × Represents an architectural curiosity or one-of-a-kind building. HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY: • Quonset Hut • No stylistic influences visible • Not eligible for local or NRHP designation • Side porch addition • Fenestration pattern altered • All windows and doors replaced Engineers Constructing Quonset Hut, 1944-1945 Unknown Location The Portal to Texas History 8 Landmark Designation Criteria ii. Historical Associations. institutions, The property has long-standing significant associations with persons, groups, businesses, or events of historic importance which contributed significantly to the history of the city, state, or nation; or represents a significant portrayal of the cultural practices or the way of life of a definable group of people in a historic time. Built in 1940 and relocated from Camp Mabry (National Register of Historic Places) in the 1970s. Camp Mabry Gate, 1918 The Portal to Texas History Camp Mabry Buildings, 1942 The Portal to Texas History 9 Landmark Designation Criteria × Archaeology. The property has, or is expected to yield, significant data concerning the …
Play video — original link
Play video
20260506-019 - National Register Applications — original pdf
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL [Historic Landmark Commission] Date of Approval: May 6, 2026 Recommendation Number: [20260506-019]: [National Register Applications at the May 16, 2026 Texas Historical Commission State Board of Review] Recommend approval of the National Register of Historic Places nomination of the Rosewood Avenue Park at 2300 Rosewood Avenue to the State Board of Review. Recommend approval of the National Register of Historic Places nomination of the Rosewood Elementary School at 2406 Rosewood Avenue to the State Board of Review. Recommend approval of the National Register of Historic Places nomination of the First Methodist Church at 1201-1203 Lavaca Street to the State Board of Review. Recommend approval of the National Register of Historic Places nomination of the Evergreen Cemetery at 3304 East 12th Street to the State Board of Review. Motioned By: Commissioner Larosche Seconded By: Commissioner Acton Vote: 9-0 For: Acton, Alvarez, Heimsath, Koch, Larosche, McWhorter, Pleasant-Wright, Rice, Taniguchi Against: Abstain: Off the dais: Absent: Evans, Grogan Attest: _____________________________________________
20260506-020 - Barton Springs Bridge Project — original pdf
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL [Historic Landmark Commission] Date of Approval: May 6, 2026 Recommendation Number: [20260506-020]: [Barton Springs Bridge Project] WHEREAS, The Barton Creek bridge in Zilker park was constructed in 1926 as a two lane bridge and expanded in 1945 and 1946 to four lanes, and the bridge is located in a National Register District, WHEREAS, The Historic Landmark Commission learned in March, that the 100-year old Barton Springs Bridge was slated for demolition and replacement. At the same time, members learned that a Council decision to demolish the bridge was made two years ago without any consultation with HLC, nor the examination of the accurate facts concerning the condition of the bridge. And, members were informed that the recommendation for demolishing the bridge had not gone through the City-mandated review process, which included a reviews by other board and commissions, and including the Historic Landmark Commission review. Beginning the review process after a Council action had already been taken in the process has created unnecessary discord and community outrage. It did, however, provide the HLC with the opportunity—albeit after the fact--to delve into the information about the viability of the bridge and the options for remediation. WHEREAS, with the limited information provided, there is reason to believe that the condition of the bridge has been misrepresented to the Council and that options for retaining the bridge has not been explored or have been withheld from objective evaluation. For example, the initial HLC presentation included misleading claims regarding the cost of rehabilitation vs. the cost of replacement, how long the bridge might last if remediation is chosen over replacement, lack of clarity on the federal standards and how the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) could govern the development process. In response to tough questions from Commissioners about the validity of the engineering studies, and conclusions drawn from them, the request for HLC review of the demotion request has been put on hold. However, a follow-up briefing did little to dispel Commissioner’s concerns and many questions remain unanswered. WHEREAS, there is sufficient evidence that if the Council-required process for review of proposed demolition had not been by-passed, and in particular, the advice and expertise from members of the HLC had been included, the Council might not have approved the bridge demolition and a great deal of rancor could have been avoided. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Landmark Commission requests …
Agenda — original pdf
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Thursday, April 30, 2026, at 11 a.m. Permitting and Development Center, Room 1203 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the committee may be participating by videoconference. Public comment will be allowed in person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Cara Bertron at (512) 974-1446 or cara.bertron@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS Judah Rice, Chair Jeffrey Acton Trey McWhorter AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order or, for remote participation, no later than noon the day before the meeting, will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Operations Committee regular meeting on March 18, 2026. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Operations Committee workplan. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. 4. Discussion and possible action on eligible expenses for the historic district tax abatement. Discussion and possible action on Historic Sign Standards. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodations no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please call or email Cara Bertron at Austin Planning at (512) 974-1446 or cara.bertron@austintexas.gov to request service or for additional information. For more information on the Operations Committee, please contact Cara Bertron at (512) 974-1446 or cara.bertron@austintexas.gov.
1. Draft minutes of the Operations Committee regular meeting on March 18, 2026 — original pdf
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 18, 2026, at 11 a.m. Permitting and Development Center, Room 1203 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the committee may be participating by videoconference. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS _X_ Judah Rice, Chair _X_ Jeffrey Acton ___ Trey McWhorter DRAFT MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL No public communication. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Operations Committee regular meeting on February 18, 2026. MOTION: Approve the minutes from February 18, 2026 on a motion by Commissioner Acton, Commissioner Rice seconding. Vote: 2-0. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding ways to approach concerns about structural issues in older buildings. Presentation by Cara Bertron, Program Manager II, Austin Planning, and Kalan Contreras, Principal Planner, Austin Planning. • Commissioners discussed getting feedback from applicants. • Commissioners discussed working with Austin Development Services staff to raise contractor awareness around compliance and identify issues early. • Staff provided an update on Development Services review. integrating historic preservation processes with DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of potential changes to the Land Development Code regarding historic preservation. • Commissioners discussed a conversation among the full commission about streamlining processes. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. 5. Discussion and possible action on eligible expenses for the historic district tax abatement. • Commissioners discussed adding permanent accessibility improvements, hazardous material abatement, and indoor air quality systems to eligible expenses. Discussion and possible action on Historic Sign Standards. • Commissioners reviewed the standards and agreed to do a more detailed review at their next meeting. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT 12:48 p.m. For more information on the Operations Committee, please contact Cara Bertron at (512) 974-1446 or cara.bertron@austintexas.gov.
3. Proposed changes to eligible expenses for the historic district tax abatement — original pdf
ELIGIBLE EXPENSES: Per 11-1-63 (6) of City Code, only work for which a certificate of appropriateness or City permit is required is included in determining whether the proposed work exceeds the specified percentage of pre-restoration value. ELIGIBLE EXPENSES: • Labor/materials related to eligible costs • Demolition related to eligible costs or to remove non-historic exterior additions and features • Repair, restoration, or replacement of historic façade and landscape features, including reconstruction of missing features • Exterior masonry and siding repair • Roofing • Foundation • Structural repairs • Gutters • Windows, including permanent weatherization measures • Exterior doors and permanent weatherization measures • Permanent HVAC systems (permanent) • Permanent eElectrical, plumbing, and gas systems (permanent) • Escalators and eElevators • Fire eEscapes • Sprinkler/fFire suppression systems • Security systems requiring installation permits (if permit required for installation) • Interior partitions, ceilings, and/or floors requiring installation permits (if permit required for installation) • Signage • Solar panels and other long-term sustainability “sustainable” improvements • Exterior paint • Exterior and interior ramps • Exterior handrails • Exterior lifts • Changes to make the exterior grade and/or existing sidewalks accessible • Repair of existing sidewalks • Widening secondary exterior doorways • Widening interior doorways • Sales tax for eligible expenses • Interior tub-to-shower conversions, except shower tiling • Other plumbing work to enhance accessibility, including lowering sinks and replacing toilets • Above listed work on outbuildings deemed contributing structures INELIGIBLE EXPENSES: • Light fixtures • Interior finish work, e.g., painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work • Appliances • Furniture • Window treatments other than permanent weatherization measures • Construction of or repair to dDecks/ and patios not original to building • Demolition costs related to removal of contributing buildings or structures • Construction of new buildings or additions • Non-historic landscape features, (e.g., retaining walls, fencing, paving, planters, vegetation, paths, or sidewalks, ) unless the changes are for accessibility purposes (see Eligible Expenses list) • Parking lot construction or expansion • Architectural and engineering fees • Building permit, variance, zoning, or platting application fees • Feasibility studies • Financing fees • Leasing expenses • Storm sewer costs • Legal and /aAccounting fees • Purchase or repair of , or repair to, construction tools and equipment • Taxes, except sales tax for eligible expenses Adopted December 2012
4. Memo regarding changes to Historic Sign Standards — original pdf
HLC – Operations Committee Proposed Signage Language Modifications January 19, 2026 Memorandum Date: March 13, 2026 To: Operations Committee Subject: Proposed Signage Guidelines Modifications The following is proposed direct modifications to the COA sign requirements (for historic districts and landmarks): Guidelines for Signage in National Registered Historic Districts, Local Historic Districts and City of Austin Historic Landmarks --- I added “Local Historic Districts” to the title of the document. --- The Historic Landmark Commission and City Historic Preservation Office consider the following guidelines in reviewing sign applications. --- The text above does not differentiate new and existing signage. It is recommended that the word “new” be added in from of “sign”. As discussed further below, there is currently no direction provided regarding existing signage. It is generally recommended that this be included within this document. --- --- it is further recommended to provide the definition of signage from the Land Development Code or reference the Land Development Code within the document. The definition for signage, provided in Section 25-10-4 (18) is very inclusive. Further discussion is warranted where the existing language below does not necessarily capture the effects that new signage could have on historic buildings. --- General Introduction Existing no introduction provided Proposed These guidelines are intended to provide guidance regarding requirements for new signage along with the preservation and maintenance of existing signage. The City of Austin Design Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties apply to all exterior modifications to properties that are located within National Historic Districts, Local Historic Districts, or are individually designated as City of Austin Landmarks. This section specifically applies to all types of exterior signage. Number of Signs Existing The Commission allows one sign per building unless the building has multiple tenants; in this case, the Commission may allow one sign per façade module, if the façade modules correspond to tenant spaces. The Commission may also allow one sign for each street frontage if the building is at an intersection. A single directory sign is appropriate for a large building with multiple tenants. Proposed Each building will be allowed one sign unless the building has multiple tenants. In the case of multiple tenants, one sign per façade module is permitted provided that the modules correspond to tenant spaces. One sign per building façade is permitted where the building is located at a street corner or faces multiple street frontages. A single directory sign …
Play audio — original link
Play audio
Approved Minutes — original pdf
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Thursday, April 30, 2026, at 11 a.m. Permitting and Development Center, Room 1203 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the committee may be participating by videoconference. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS _X_ Judah Rice, Chair _X_ Jeffrey Acton _X_ Trey McWhorter MINUTES CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL No public communication. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Operations Committee regular meeting on March 18, 2026. MOTION: Approve the minutes from March 18, 2026 on a motion by Commissioner Acton, Commissioner Rice seconding. Vote: 2-0. Commissioner McWhorter off the dais. Commissioner McWhorter left the meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Operations Committee workplan. • No updates on this item. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion and possible action on eligible expenses for the historic district tax abatement. • Commissioners added hazardous materials abatement and permanent air quality improvement measure to the list of eligible work, in addition to work to improve accessibility. • MOTION: Recommend the modified list of eligible expenses for the historic district tax abatement to the full Commission for adoption on a motion by Commissioner Acton, Commissioner Rice seconding. Vote: 2-0. 4. Discussion and possible action on Historic Sign Standards. • Commissioners discussed focusing standards on the pedestrian-scale streetscape. • Commissioners discussed the need to better understand internal sign review processes and fees. • Commissioners discussed adding sign review to the Historic Review application and clarifying on the Development Services sign application that sign removal requires historic review. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT: 12:18 p.m. Meeting minutes approved at the May 20, 2026 meeting on Commissioner Acton’s motion, Commissioner Rice seconding on a 2-0 vote.
Agenda — original pdf
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2026, AT 4:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, CONFERENCE ROOM 1401 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DR AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Historic Landmark Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, please use the QR code or link at the end of this document. For questions, please email preservation@austintexas.gov. KEVIN KOCH JAIME ALVAREZ HARMONY GROGAN CURRENT COMMISSIONERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order are allowed three minutes to speak on items not posted to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Architectural Review Committee regular meeting on March 11, 2026. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. C14H-1978-0038 – 713 Congress Ave. Paramount Theatre Council District 9 Proposal: Repair the roof and replace the parapet coping tile. Applicant: Johnathan Humphrey C14H-2023-0105 – 719 Congress Ave. State Theatre Council District 9 Proposal: Replace the auditorium HVAC unit. Applicant: Johnathan Humphrey 208 W. 32nd St. Aldridge Place Local Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Remodel and construct an addition to a contributing building. Applicant: Caitlin Hough, Andrew Logan C14H-1982-0001-f – 916 Congress Ave. Larmour Block (F) Council District 9 Proposal: Construct an event space behind the existing façade. Applicant: Patrick Georgiou HR-2026-021800 – 1107 W. 9th St. Castle Hill Local Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Remodel a contributing house. Applicant: Nathan Griffith 1010 E. Cesar Chavez St. Council District 3 Proposal: Restore and rehabilitate the structure. Applicant: Ingrid Gonzalez Featherston ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodation no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please contact Hunter Sturgill, Austin Planning, at 512-974-3393 or preservation@austintexas.gov to request service or for additional information. For more information on the …
0.0 - ARC 03_11_26 Draft Minutes — original pdf
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2026, AT 4:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, CONFERENCE ROOM 1401 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DR AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Historic Landmark Commission may be participating by videoconference. X KEVIN KOCH X JAIME ALVAREZ X HARMONY GROGAN CURRENT COMMISSIONERS DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: 4:03PM PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order are allowed three minutes to speak on items not posted to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Architectural Review Committee regular meeting on February 11, 2026. MOTION: Approve the February 11, 2026 meeting minutes. Motion by Commissioner Grogan. Commissioner Koch seconded the motion. Commissioner Alvarez off the dais. Vote 2-0. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. 3. 4. 208 W. 32nd St. Aldridge Place Local Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Remodel and construct an addition to a contributing building. Applicant: Caitlin Hough, Andrew Logan The applicant presented their proposal. The committee provided feedback. 1308 West Lynn St. Old West Austin National Register Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Rehabilitate a church. Applicant: Graham Brown The applicant presented their proposal. The committee provided feedback. 1621 Nash Hernandez Sr. Rd. Council District 3 Proposal: Rehabilitate Austin Parks and Recreation administrative and community spaces. Applicant: Ingrid Kong The applicant presented their proposal. The committee provided feedback. ADJOURNMENT: 5:11PM The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodation no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please contact Hunter Sturgill, Austin Planning, at 512-974-3393 or preservation@austintexas.gov to request service or for additional information. For more information on the Historic Landmark Commission, please contact Hunter Sturgill at 512- 974-3393 or preservation@austintexas.gov.
04.0 - 208 W 32nd St - presentation — original pdf
26.05.W 32ND ST JAMES KHEDARI & GABRIELLE FRASER 26.05.W 32ND ST ARC WORKSHOP M P 4 0 : 3 0 : 1 6 2 0 2 / 1 / 4 FULL SCALE IS 24X36 SHEET | HALF SCALE IS 12X18 SHEET 208 WEST 32ND STREET AUSTIN, TX 78705 SD-000 03.30.2026 SURVEY NOT TO SCALE 26.05.W 32ND ST ARC WORKSHOP M P 5 0 : 3 0 : 1 6 2 0 2 / 1 / 4 FULL SCALE IS 24X36 SHEET | HALF SCALE IS 12X18 SHEET 208 WEST 32ND STREET AUSTIN, TX 78705 SD-100 03.30.2026 SITE CONDITIONS EXISTING HOUSE SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 26.05.W 32ND ST ARC WORKSHOP M P 8 0 : 3 0 : 1 6 2 0 2 / 1 / 4 FULL SCALE IS 24X36 SHEET | HALF SCALE IS 12X18 SHEET 208 WEST 32ND STREET AUSTIN, TX 78705 SD-101 03.30.2026 SITE CONDITIONS EXISTING GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 26.05.W 32ND ST ARC WORKSHOP M P 0 1 : 3 0 : 1 6 2 0 2 / 1 / 4 FULL SCALE IS 24X36 SHEET | HALF SCALE IS 12X18 SHEET 208 WEST 32ND STREET AUSTIN, TX 78705 SD-102 03.30.2026 SITE CONDITIONS EXISTING INTERIORS 26.05.W 32ND ST ARC WORKSHOP M P 3 1 : 3 0 : 1 6 2 0 2 / 1 / 4 FULL SCALE IS 24X36 SHEET | HALF SCALE IS 12X18 SHEET 208 WEST 32ND STREET AUSTIN, TX 78705 SD-103 03.30.2026 SITE CONDITIONS EXISTING DETAILS EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS CORNER EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS EAVE COLUMN AT CORNERS ATTIC WINDOW ATTIC VENT AND TRIM EXTERIOR WINDOW SCREEN EXTERIOR WINDOW TRIM EXTERIOR COLUMN BASE EXTERIOR FIREPLACE TEARDROP SIDING INTERIOR CORNER WINDOW 26.05.W 32ND ST ARC WORKSHOP M P 0 2 : 3 0 : 1 6 2 0 2 / 1 / 4 FULL SCALE IS 24X36 SHEET | HALF SCALE IS 12X18 SHEET 208 WEST 32ND STREET AUSTIN, TX 78705 SD-104 03.30.2026 EXST. SITE PLAN EXISTING HOUSE ORIENTATION HEMPHILL PARK 43' R.O.W. N 36° 05' 41" 16.30' E N 39° 42' 32" 16.35' E N 44° 16' 10" 16.35' E N 45° 47' 02" 16.45' E N 45° 54' 04" 32.02' E N 41° 52' 44" 29.23' E S 6 6 ° 3 5 6.4 4' 0 8' 3 " E 40.8" PECAN 42" PECAN DRIVEWAY 458 SF 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN (576.78') 100 …
06.0 - 1107 W 9th St — original pdf
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness April 1, 2026 HR-2026-021800 Castle Hill Historic District 1107 West 9th Street 10 – 1 Proposal Renovate existing house. The non-contributing rear house will also be modified. Project Specifications 1) Replace existing siding with painted wood ship lap. 2) Construct new 8’0” steel fence. 3) Replace existing undivided windows with wood 1:1 windows at first floor, fixed-pane undivided square windows at dormers, and fixed-pane picture window at existing picture window. 4) Construct rear addition with dormer. 5) Remove chimney from east dormer. 6) Replace existing roof with flat terra cotta tiles and metal shingles at rear addition. Architecture A 2010 historic zoning application describes the building as follows: The house is one-and-a-half stories with a hipped roof, hipped dormers, and a wraparound porch…Above the front door there is a transom, an integral part of architecture of the period as well…The house still has 7 working transoms throughout the inside, which helped to circulate the air between rooms…The house has had a number of changes over the years. The house first appears on the 1922 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map and shows a smaller footprint…[it] had a porch stretching all the way across the front of the house and another one along the east side. …Between 1922 and 1935, design of the house was modified to include a bay window, extend the sides and include a small porch in the middle of the back of the house. In 1962 the house was modified again — the bay window was brought forward a few feet onto the porch to create a larger living room inside — which eliminated the front porch in front of this window, and the back part of the side porch was enclosed to enlarge the bedroom. In 2008 the kitchen…was extended slightly to the rear…In 2010 the front porch was restored to again extend all the way across the front of the house (and free one of the original porch pillars from the wall built in 1962) by moving a modified version of the bay window back (Tim Cuppett was also the architect for this project). All of the finishes and details on the outside of the house are original with the exception of the new bay window.1 However, former Historic Preservation Officer Steve Sadowsky noted that the 2010 addition likely destroyed original fabric at the front of the house: …
07.0 - 1010 E Cesar Chavez St - presentation — original pdf
URTH CAFFÈ ARC MTG April 8th, 2026 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVIEW: 1. How is the project affected by the limit of adherence to current IBC code rather than Existing Building Code? What areas will this affect our detailing/energy effi ciency requirements? It’s our understanding that we will be required to meet current IBC and IECC which affect the following building systems: • Building/wall enclosure • Roof insulation • Window selection/ratings • Building loads DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR PRESERVATION, REHABILITATING, RESTORING & RECONSTRUCTING HISTORIC BUILDINGS: 1. PRESERVATION • Defi ned as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construciton. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbig systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. • Fire Separation/proximity to property line 2. REHABILITATION 2. Review following details in accordance with intent to preserve character of the building facade • Siding: WD teardrop and board and batten conditions to be reviewed • Eave: Coordinated detail with structural engineer to match existing profi le • Paint colors: Chosen to be similar to light colors seen in historic photographs CITY OF AUSTIN COMMUNICAITON SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 — ARC REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2024 — ARC REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2024 — HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING AND APPROVAL APRIL 28, 2025 — INITIAL PERMIT SUBMISSION JUNE 2, 2025 — RESUBMISSION 1 JULY 24, 2025 — RESUBMISSION 2 NOVEMBER 20, 2025 — RESUBMISSION 3 DECEMBER 13, 2025 — PERMIT APPROVAL MARCH 2, 2026 — SELECTIVE DEMOLITION START DATE MARCH 10, 2026 — STOP WORK ORDER ISSUED • Defi ned as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values 3. RESTORATION • Defi ned as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features …
Play audio — original link
Play audio
Preview List — original pdf
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATIONS UNDER REVIEW FOR APRIL 1, 2026 MEETING This list does not constitute a formal agenda and is subject to change. A final agenda will be posted at least 3 business days prior to the meeting. Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. Speaker Registration will open once the formal agenda is posted. For questions, please email preservation@austintexas.gov. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission regular meeting on March 4, 2026. BRIEFINGS 2. 3. 4. 5. Staff briefing regarding the Downtown Density Bonus Program Update by Alan Pani, Planner Principal, Austin Planning. Staff briefing on FY26 Heritage Preservation Grants by Kristina Koufos, Project Coordinator, Heritage Tourism Division, Austin Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment (AACME). Staff briefing regarding the Barton Springs Bridge Project by Eric Bailey, Department Director, Capital Delivery Services. Briefing regarding 1010 E. Cesar Chavez St. by Ingrid Featherston, Senior Architect, MF Architecture. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS Historic Zoning 6. C14H-2026-0018 – 1906 Maple Ave. Thompson House Council District 1 Proposal: Commission-initiated historic zoning. Applicant: Historic Landmark Commission City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic Preservation Office, 512-978-0766 Historic Landmark and Local Historic District Applications 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. HR-2026-027581; C14H-2004-0005 – 709 Rio Grande St. Sayers House Council District 9 Proposal: Convert use of property from residential to educational with life safety improvements and rehabilitation to the exterior. Applicant: Chad Johnson City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic Preservation Office, 512-978-0766 HR-2026-028338; C14H-1978-0038 – 713 Congress Ave. Paramount Theatre Council District 9 Proposal: Replace a non-historic storefront and install life safety and accessibility updates. Applicant: Ashley Knight-Rositas City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic Preservation Office, 512-978-0766 PR-2026-008188 – 1005 E. 8th St. Robertson/Stuart & Mair Local Historic District Council District 1 Proposal: Demolish a contributing building. Applicant: Robbie MacGregor City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic Preservation Office, 512-978-0766 HR-2026-021800 – 1107 W. 9th St. Castle Hill Local Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Remodel a contributing house. Applicant: Nathan Griffith City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 HR-2026-027548 – 4010 Avenue B Hyde Park Local Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Rehabilitate a contributing property and construct a single-family …
Agenda — original pdf
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 301 W. 2ND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Historic Landmark Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, please use the QR code or link at the end of this document. For questions, please email preservation@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS BEN HEIMSATH, CHAIR (D-8) CARL LAROSCHE (D-6) ROXANNE EVANS, VICE CHAIR (D-2) TREY MCWHORTER (D-10) JEFFREY ACTON (MAYOR) TONYA PLEASANT-WRIGHT (D-1) JAIME ALVAREZ (D-7) JUDAH RICE (D-4) HARMONY GROGAN (D-5) BAT TANIGUCHI (D-9) KEVIN KOCH (D-3) AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three- minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission regular meeting on March 4, 2026. BRIEFINGS 2. 3. 4. 5. Staff briefing regarding the Downtown Density Bonus Program Update by Alan Pani, Planner Principal, Austin Planning. Staff briefing on FY26 Heritage Preservation Grants by Kristina Koufos, Project Coordinator, Heritage Tourism Division, Austin Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment (AACME). Staff briefing regarding the Barton Springs Bridge Project by Eric Bailey, Department Director, Capital Delivery Services. Briefing regarding 1010 E. Cesar Chavez St. by Ingrid Gonzalez Featherston, AIA, Senior Architect, MF Architecture; Sarah Johnson, AIA, Principal Architect, MF Architecture; Sam Covey; Adam Lucas. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS Historic Zoning 6. C14H-2026-0018 – 1906 Maple Ave. Thompson House Council District 1 Proposal: Commission-initiated historic zoning. Applicant: Historic Landmark Commission City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic Preservation Office, 512-978-0766 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from family residence-historic district-neighborhood plan (SF-3-HD-NP) to family residence-historic landmark-historic district neighborhood plan (SF-3-H-HD-NP) combining district zoning. Historic Landmark and Local Historic District Applications 7. 8. HR-2026-027581; C14H-2004-0005 – 709 Rio Grande St. Sayers House Council District 9 Proposal: Rehabilitate a City of Austin landmark for use as a school. Applicant: Chad Johnson City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic …
0.0 - HLC_03_04_26_Draft Minutes — original pdf
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 301 W. 2ND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Historic Landmark Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live CURRENT COMMISSIONERS X BEN HEIMSATH, CHAIR (D-8) AB CARL LAROSCHE (D-6) X ROXANNE EVANS, VICE CHAIR (D-2) X TREY MCWHORTER (D-10) X JEFFREY ACTON (MAYOR) X TONYA PLEASANT-WRIGHT (D-1) X JAIME ALVAREZ (D-7) X JUDAH RICE (D-4) AB HARMONY GROGAN (D-5) X BAT TANIGUCHI (D-9) X KEVIN KOCH (D-3) DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: 6:01PM PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three- minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. Karen Kocher spoke on the Barton Springs Bridge project. Jason Haskins spoke on the Barton Springs Bridge project. Ricca Keepers spoke on a project at 522 Sunny Ln. David Heymann spoke on the Barton Springs Bridge project. Bill Bunch spoke on the Barton Springs Bridge project. Ben Livingston spoke on the Barton Springs Bridge project. Charles E. Walker spoke on the Barton Springs Bridge project. Patricia Bobeck spoke on the Barton Springs Bridge project. Meghan King Namour gave updates on Preservation Austin. Asai Meyer spoke about transportation planning. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission regular meeting on February 4, 2026. MOTION: Approve the minutes per passage of the consent agenda, on a motion by Commissioner Koch. Commissioner Acton seconded the motion. Vote 9-0. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS Historic Zoning 2. C14H-1987-0016 – 810 W. 10th St. Mayer-Howse House Council District 9 Proposal: Recommend ordinance cleanup via Commission-initiated historic zoning to Planning Commission and City Council. Applicant: Historic Landmark Commission City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from general office- equitable transit-oriented development-equitable transit-oriented density bonus (GO- ETODDBETOD) district zoning to general office-historic landmark-equitable transit-oriented development-equitable transit-oriented density bonus (GO-H-ETOD-DBETOD) district zoning as a means of correcting the existing administrative record. MOTION: Recommend historic zoning per staff recommendation with the passage of the consent agenda, on a motion by Commissioner Koch. Commissioner Acton seconded the motion. Vote 9-0. The motion passed. National Register Historic District Permit Applications 3. 4. HR-2025-145729 – 2100 Barton Springs Rd. WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT. No …
02.0 - DDB Program Update Briefing - presentation — original pdf
Downtown Density Bonus Phase 1 – Proposal Austin Planning | Historic Landmark Commission | 4/1/2026 Agenda • • • Background Existing Program & Process Proposed Changes • Urban Design Standards • Community Benefits | • Downtown Density Bonus Process • Stakeholder Engagement, Feedback, and Timeline 2 Background City Council Resolution Downtown Density Bonus Update Resolution No. 20240718-185 in July 2024 directed staff to update the Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) program Requested: Updates to gatekeeper requirements Integration of Rainey subdistrict Creation of new subdistricts Prioritization of accessibility and shade opportunities Simplification of the affordability program Alignment of the program with the Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (ETOD) overlay. Downtown Density Bonus – Phase 1 In response to Senate Bill 840, Council adopted Ordinance No. 20251023-063, which amended the Central Business District Zone and directed staff to update the DDB program by June 2026 for three DDB subdistricts 4 Existing Program & Process Phase 1 - Existing Height & FAR Map After the recent adoption of the Central Business District Zone amendments and updates to the DDB, the three subdistricts in Phase 1 have the following entitlements available via the DDB program: Core Subdistrict – 350ft of height and 25:1 FAR* Rainey Subdistrict – 350ft of height and 15:1 FAR* Convention Center Subdistrict – 350ft of height and 15:1 FAR* Applicants can request Council approval to exceed these entitlements *FAR limits are only applicable to commercial developments 6 Proposed Changes Phase I – Proposed Applicability Revised to remove the Red River Cultural District from Phase I To be updated and included in Phase II of the DDB Update DDB is a voluntary program Supersedes the following overlays: Capitol Dominance Overlay Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Density Bonus Waterfront Overlay 8 Phase I – Combining Districts Each combining district will have different entitlements/requirements. Phase I will create 2 combining districts: DDB400 has +400 ft DDB850 has +850 ft Additional height is additive to the property’s base zoning height limit E.g., a CBD-DDB400 site could build up to 750 ft (350 ft base height + 400 bonus ft) Sites will be rezoned into DDB400 in Phase I. Sites will be eligible to request rezoning into DDB850 through the standard rezoning process. Max height cannot be exceeded by …
04.0 - Barton Springs Bridge Briefing - presentation — original pdf
Barton Springs Road Bridge Capital Delivery Services | 04 Feb 2026 Project Project Background Background Project History About the Bridge Nearly 100years old built in 1926 20,000 Vehicles per day 1946 Bridge Expansion Key Entrance to Zilker Park and for Major City Events 3 Project Site Protect Park Monuments Bridge Site Challenge and Constraint Categories: Park and Historic Environmental Roadway Intersection Bridge 4 Project Purpose and Need Project Needs Project Goals / Outcomes Age of Structure 100 yrs old, Associated structural degradation Safety Barton Springs roadway not aligned Hillside instability at Umlauf Gardens Provide 75 Year Bridge Service Life Improve Safety Stabilize Umlauf Gardens Insufficient Paths Not enough bike or pedestrian paths on bridge Add Multi-modal and Connect with Park Trails Intersection Congestion At Barton Springs / Azie Morton intersection Reduce Congestion with addition of right turn 5 Project Purpose and Need Roadway Alignment Issues 6 Project Purpose and Need Goal During Construction Maintain two-way traffic during construction Maintain the Azie Morton / Barton Springs intersection during construction 20,000 Vehicles per day on Barton Springs Road (cid:127) Important commuter route (cid:127) Key access to Zilker Park (cid:127) Access to many special events (Trail of Lights, Austin City Limits, Blues on the Green, Zilker Park) 7 Project Options Project Options Rehabilitation or Replacement Options 9 Project Elements Elements Required for Rehabilitation or Replacement Bike Lanes Sidewalk / Path Shared Use Path Proposed Bridge Widened Bike Lane Accommodates Accommodate hiking Trails Wider Ped. Paths off-road biker trail users Accommodates Pedestrians for Special Events Multimodal areas to accommodate off-road hike and bike trail users Longer service life length Wider bridge Better alignment for safety Dedicated bike lanes 10 Bridge Inspection Bridge Inspection Findings Deck (with integral longitudinal joint), floor beams, and spandrel columns exhibited the most degradation. All structural components exhibited some degradation. Degraded Concrete Spandrel Column Spalling Exposed and Corroded Rebar Exposed and Corroded Rebar 11 Rehabilitation Options Spandrel Columns Arch Ribs Bridge Inspection Findings Rehabilitation for increased service life requires removal of deck, floor beams, and spandrel columns Demolish the structure to the arch ribs. Significant work is needed: major rehabilitation or bridge replacement. Do Nothing is not an option 1 Preserve Rehabilitation Option 1 is not feasible 12 Rehabilitation Options Improve Paths Arch ribs …
04.1 - BSRB BCER URS Resp to WJE comments Table 2023-10-20 — original pdf
Job No.: CLMP167 Title: Bridge Concept Engineering Report (BCER) Peer Review PEER REVIEW COMMENTS Date: October 10, 2023 Preparer: URS/AECOM Reviewer: WJE – Brian D. Merrill, PE Responder: URS / AECOM Discipline: Bridge/Structures Status: ☐Criteria ☐100% ☐90% ☐60% ☐30% ☒Draft Report Review Purpose: ☒Independent Peer Review ☐Discipline ☐Project Approach Review ☐Interdiscipline ☐Other: Action Code: A ‐ Agree, will comply D ‐ Delete comment1 E ‐ Exception taken Commen t No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Drawing, Spec, or Page No. Pdf 7 Pdf 7 Pdf 8 Comment Action/Response2 The statement highlighted is possibly overstated. Neither TxDOT nor the City have performed additional inspections/assessments over time that aren’t related to the current efforts. The condition ratings for the deck, superstructure, and substructure are all 6 (Satisfactory condition) and have been that way for the many years. TxDOT has not increased the frequency of safety inspections. We do agree that at almost 100 years old, the original portions of the bridge may be approaching the end of their useful life. Given the desire for the “next” bridge to last 75+ years, keeping the original poses some challenges. We propose to revise the highlighted statement as follows, "The condition of the structure has progressively deteriorated over its lifespan and this points towards more detailed inspection and condition assessments looking forward ." Comment acknowledged. Rehab Options 2 & 3 appear to address a similar approach taken for the Congress Ave bridge over Lady Bird Lake and SH 29 at S. San Gabriel River in Georgetown. These designs both left the arches and spandrel columns in place but not acting as part of the structural system. This bridge’s skew and the location of the spandrel columns makes adding a new substructure on the existing foundations more challenging, if not impossible. Agree this concept was considered. Comment acknowledged. The retrofitted spandrels are intended to be engaged for vertical loads. Pdf 9 Phase 2 of the Preliminary Selection and Concept Eng. Process was not provided to WJE for review. Deliverables for Phase 2 were transmitted by URS/AECOM to the City of Austin. Pdf 12 The CoA streel “levels” (per CoA Street Design Guide) for Bartron Springs were not mentioned. We suggest it likely falls under level 3 – but the lane widths shown in Section 2.2 Geometric development, are too narrow for this street level. Comment acknowledged. These lane widths were a product of coordination …
04.2 - BSRB BCER Public Release Redacted 2023.12.08_Part1 — original pdf
This page intentionally left blank 2 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD BRIDGE OVER BARTON CREEK PROJECT Bridge Concept Engineering Report CIP ID #5873.031 AUSTIN, TEXAS OCTOBER 2023 PREPARED FOR The City of Austin PREPARED BY URS – an AECOM Company Texas P.E. Firm Registration No. F‐3162 13640 Briarwick Drive Suite 200 Austin, TX 78729 Telephone: 512‐454‐4797 Website: aecom.com 3 Date: October 26, 2023 This page intentionally left blank 4 Contents Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................9 1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................11 1.1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................... 11 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Description of the Bridge Project Process ............................................................................. 12 1.4 Project and Report Scope ........................................................................................................ 13 2 Project Area ..........................................................................................................................15 3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................16 3.1 3.2 Bridge Cultural/Historical Conditions .................................................................................. 16 Bridge Structural Condition ................................................................................................... 16 3.2.1 3.2.2 Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................ 17 Preliminary Environmental Conditions ........................................................................ 18 4 Alternative Development and Selection Process .........................................................23 4.1 Initial Assessments (2018‐2019) .............................................................................................. 23 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 Early Geometric Concepts .............................................................................................. 23 Bridge Rehabilitation Feasibility .................................................................................... 24 Bridge Replacement Concepts ........................................................................................ 24 Design Reviews and Funding Pause ............................................................................. 24 4.2 Bridge Alternative Development (2021‐2022) ...................................................................... 24 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 Design Charrette .............................................................................................................. 25 City Department Vetting and Alternative Refinement ............................................... 25 Initial Agency Vetting ..................................................................................................... 25 Bridge Alternatives (Comparison of Options) ............................................................. 25 Additional Agency Vetting ............................................................................................. 32 4.3 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 32 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 Open House ...................................................................................................................... 32 Public Comment Summary ............................................................................................. 32 Post Open House Discussions ........................................................................................ 33 5 Proposed Improvements ...................................................................................................34 5.1 5.2 Bridge Cross‐Section ................................................................................................................ 37 Bridge Aesthetic Design .......................................................................................................... 37 5 5.3 5.4 Roadway Design ...................................................................................................................... 38 Park Area Design ..................................................................................................................... 39 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 Structure/Tree Protection and Mitigation ..................................................................... 39 Zilker Park – Zilker Eagle ............................................................................................... 40 Zilker Park Hike/Bike Trail ............................................................................................. 40 Umlauf Garden Retaining Wall ..................................................................................... 40 5.5 Structural Design ...................................................................................................................... 41 5.6 Utility Design ............................................................................................................................ 42 6 Construction Phases and Methods ..................................................................................44 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Construction Phases ................................................................................................................ 44 Foundation and Substructure Construction ......................................................................... 45 Superstructure Construction .................................................................................................. 46 Construction Sequence/Maintenance of Traffic ................................................................... 46 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 Phase 1 ............................................................................................................................... 47 Phase 2 ............................................................................................................................... 48 Phase 3 ............................................................................................................................... 49 Final Construction ............................................................................................................ 50 7 Project Cost ..........................................................................................................................51 Appendices Appendix A ‐ Early Studies A‐1 ‐ Section 106 Report – Sept 2016 A‐2 ‐ Bridge Inspection Report – Jan 2017 A‐3 ‐ Traffic Memo – Jan 2018 Appendix B ‐ Bridge Initial Assessments B‐1 ‐ Initial Geometry ‐ Feb 2018 B‐2 ‐ Rehabilitation Feasibility …
04.2 - BSRB BCER Public Release Redacted 2023.12.08_Part2 — original pdf
C-2 - Draft Interim Bridge Status Memorandum – Feb 2022 Barton Springs Rd. Bridge over Barton Creek Interim Bridge Status REVISIONS Project: City of Austin – Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Document: Interim Bridge Status Memorandum Revision Date of Issue Description D0 D1 D2 01/17/19 01/25/19 02/24/22 Draft Issue for Internal Comment Draft Issue for City Management Team Review/Comment Draft Issue for City Management Team Review/Comment Statement of Limitations This report is intended for the City of Austin and is not to be distributed to third parties outside the City’s organization. This interim memo provides an update regarding the status of the conceptual design work performed by URS for the proposed facility. This work is ongoing and not complete. Information included in this memo is subject to change prior to release of the Final Bridge Conceptual Engineering Report. Page ii Barton Springs Rd. Bridge over Barton Creek Interim Bridge Status CONTENTS PAGE 1. 2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 Background ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Objectives .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Bridge Engineering Process ...................................................................... 2 1.3 1.3.1 Preliminary Selection and Concept Engineering – Process Phase 1 ...... 2 1.3.2 Preliminary Selection and Concept Engineering – Process Phase 2 ...... 3 1.3.3 Preliminary Selection and Concept Engineering – Process Phase 3 ...... 3 2.4 2.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................. 4 Bridge Cultural/Historical Background ....................................................... 4 2.1 Barton Springs/Azie Morton Road Intersection Assessment .......................... 4 2.2 Roadway Alignment Concepts (Rehabilitation vs Replacement) .................... 4 2.3 2.3.1 Rehabilitation Option .................................................................... 4 2.3.2 Replacement Option ..................................................................... 5 Maintenance of Traffic / Construction Phasing ............................................ 5 2.4.1 Phase 1 (Figure 2-3) ..................................................................... 5 2.4.2 Phase 2 (Figure 2-4) ..................................................................... 6 2.4.3 Phase 3 (Figure 2-5) ..................................................................... 6 2.4.4 Final Tasks – Complete Construction............................................... 7 Bridge Rehabilitation Summary ................................................................ 7 2.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 7 2.5.2 Bridge Rehabilitation Feasibility ...................................................... 7 2.5.3 Description of Existing Condition .................................................... 7 2.5.4 Service Life Estimates ................................................................... 8 2.5.5 Existing Structure - Load Capacity Estimates ................................... 9 2.5.6 Rehabilitation Concept and Components ........................................ 10 2.5.7 Rehabilitation Renderings ............................................................ 11 2.5.8 Estimated Costs ......................................................................... 11 Bridge Replacement Summary ............................................................... 12 2.6.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 12 2.6.2 Bridge Replacement Feasibility ..................................................... 12 2.6.3 Replacement Concept and Components ......................................... 12 2.6.4 Estimated Costs ......................................................................... 13 Conceptual Zilker Park/Pedestrian Opportunities ...................................... 13 2.7.1 Structure/Tree Protection and Mitigation ....................................... 14 2.7.2 Zilker Park – Zilker Zephyr .......................................................... 14 2.7.3 Zilker Park Hike/Bike Trail ........................................................... 14 2.7.4 Barton Springs Road ................................................................... …
04.2 - BSRB BCER Public Release Redacted 2023.12.08_Part3 — original pdf
C-4 - Rehabilitation vs Replacement Memo – September 2022 City of Austin Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Rehabilitation vs. Replacement Memorandum CIP ID 5873.031 URS Corporation 9400 Amberglen Blvd. Austin, TX 78729 (512) 419-5897 TX Firm F-3162 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Cswy. Tampa, FL 33607-1462 (813) 286-1711 September 28, 2022 Final (F1) This document is released under the authority of Robert B. Anderson Texas PE No. 111066 Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Rehab vs. Replacement Memo REVISIONS Project: City of Austin – Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Document: Rehab vs. Replacement Memo Revision Date of Issue Description D0 D1 D2 F1 08/22/2022 Draft Issue for Internal Comment 09/12/2022 Revised Draft Issue post PWD comments 09/19/2022 Revised Draft Issue cost table and replacement comparison 09/28/2022 Final Issue Contents 1. 2. 3. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 3 Purpose and Need .................................................................................. 3 1.1 Bridge Cultural / Historical Background / Existing Condition ......................... 3 1.2 DESIGN CONCEPTS ....................................................................................... 5 Design Elements Common to Both Rehabilitation and Replacement .............. 5 2.1 Rehabilitation Option .............................................................................. 5 2.2 Replacement Option ............................................................................... 7 2.3 COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY REPLACEMENT / REHABILITATION CONCEPTS .................................................................................................. 10 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 12 Statement of Limitations This report is intended for the City of Austin and is distributed to third parties outside the City’s organization, with their consent. This interim memo provides a direct comparison between the rehabilitation and replacement options for the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek and provides a recommendation from the design team. This report is intended to outline the current design approach and highlight the pros and cons associated with the rehabilitation and replacement concepts. To limit the size and focus of this memo, the detailed work associated with existing bridge inspection and preliminary concept development and analysis are incorporated by reference. Page 2 of 13 Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Rehab vs. Replacement Memo 1. INTRODUCTION This section of the report summarizes the purpose and need for the project and provides some Cultural and Historical Background. 1.1 Purpose and Need The purpose and need for this project is centered on safety-related bridge improvements that address the following items: Insufficient bike / pedestrian paths (functionally obsolete); Age of structure / structural degradation; Bridge roadway lanes not aligned with lanes east of Azie Morton; Hillside instability (rock fall) and obsolete retaining wall on Azie Morton east side …
04.2 - BSRB BCER Public Release Redacted 2023.12.08_Part4 — original pdf
Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 2 ft 8 ft 18.5 ft 33.5 ft 40 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-1 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 2 40 ft – Del Rio Clayshale Project No. 0121-014 44 ft – Georgetown Limestone 45 ft 50 ft 55 ft 50 ft 60 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-1 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 2 of 2 Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 2 ft 7 ft 18.5 ft 33.5 ft 39 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-2 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 2 40 ft – Del Rio Clayshale 41.5 ft – Georgetown LS Project No. 0121-014 45 ft 55 ft 50 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-2 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas 50 ft 60 ft Sheet 2 of 2 1 ft 7 ft 18.5 ft 28.5 ft Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 34.3 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-3 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 2 35 ft – Del Rio Clayshale Project No. 0121-014 39 ft – Georgetown Limestone 40 ft 45 ft 45 ft 50 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-3 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 2 of 2 0 ft 6 ft – Buda Limestone Project No. 0121-014 5.5 ft 10 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 6 10 ft 20 ft Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 20 ft 23 ft – Del Rio Clayshale 25 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas 30 ft Sheet 2 of 6 30 ft 40 ft 35 ft 45 ft Project No. 0121-014 40 ft 50 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 3 of 6 Project No. 0121-014 55 ft 60 ft 50 ft 60 ft Core loss due to core barrel jam - 65 to 70 ft 65 ft 70 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 4 of 6 Core loss due to core barrel jam - 70 to 72 ft 70 ft Project No. 0121-014 75 ft 80 ft 80 ft – Georgetown Limestone 85 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas 90 ft Sheet 5 of 6 Project No. 0121-014 95 ft 100 ft 90 ft 100 ft 105 ft …
04.2 - BSRB BCER Public Release Redacted 2023.12.08_Part5 — original pdf
D-2 - Initial US Army Corps of Engineers Meeting – Nov. 2022 D-3 - Section 106 Evaluation – January 2023 SECTION 106 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT OF THE BARTON SPRINGS ROAD BRIDGE CITY OF AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS January 2023 Section 106 Effects Assessment of the Barton Springs Road Bridge, Austin, Travis County, Texas Prepared by: Kurt Korfmacher Architectural Historian and Principal Investigator And Erica Koteras Historian Consulting Firm: AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Contact Information: 11842 Rim Rock Trail Austin, TX 78737 Telephone: (512) 329-0031 January 2023 Barton Springs Road Bridge Section 106 Evaluation ABSTRACT At the request of URS Corporation and on behalf of the City of Austin (City), AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. (AmaTerra) conducted an assessment of effect to the Barton Springs Road Bridge in Austin, Travis County, Texas. Barton Springs Road Bridge is a contributing resource to the Zilker Park Historic District, a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The City proposes improvements to Barton Springs Road that would necessitate changes to the bridge, potentially including replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure. As the proposed undertaking would require permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it is subject to the requirements of Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). As the City is a political entity of the State of Texas, the Antiquities Code of Texas (Texas Natural Resources Code, Title 9, Chapter 191) and its associated regulations (13 TAC 26) also apply. In October 2022, professional historians meeting the Secretary of Interior Standards conducted an evaluation of the proposed project and its potential for effect on the NRHP-listed bridge and related contributing resources to the Zilker Park Historic District per Section 106 guidelines. Zilker Park Historic District is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A and C at the local level in the areas of Architecture, Conservation, Entertainment/Recreation, and Landscape Architecture, with a period of significance of 1917-1947. Both Barton Springs Road Bridge and the Main Entrance Piers (contributing) are within the project area. The proposed bridge improvements are associated with a larger overall plan for Zilker Park known as the Zilker Park Vision Plan. This ambitious multi-year proposal would make major changes to large sections of Zilker Park to improve pedestrian flow and access, improve safety, restore and protect the natural environment, and make general improvements to how the park is accessed and …
04.2 - BSRB BCER Public Release Redacted 2023.12.08_Part6 — original pdf
E-1 - Open House Boards E-2 - Public Comments – April 2023 Barton Springs Road Bridge Over Barton Creek Project Public Meeting Summary (April 2023) Contents Public Engagement Process ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Comment Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Overall Sentiment Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Comments ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 No Changes to Bridge ‐ roughly 20% ........................................................................................................................ 3 Against Replacement ‐ roughly 5% ........................................................................................................................... 3 In Favor of Rehabilitation ‐ roughly 30% .................................................................................................................. 3 In Favor of Replacement – 30% .................................................................................................................................. 3 Undetermined/Miscellaneous – 10% ......................................................................................................................... 3 Results for Optional Demographic Questions ................................................................................................................. 3 Appendix: All Comments ................................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Public Engagement Process On April 4, 2023, the Austin Transportation & Public Works Department (TPW) conducted its first in‐person public meeting on the Barton Springs Road Bridge Project. Although this meeting was postponed from March 2, 2023, due to local weather conditions, the virtual public meeting went online on March 2 as planned and remained live through April 18 when all public comments were due. The purpose of this in‐person and virtual meeting was to present the project and to gather community feedback on various alternatives for improving safety and mobility for the Barton Springs Road Bridge. Many of the existing bridge’s features are functionally obsolete and require rehabilitation or replacement to ensure safety and longevity. Promotion of the public meeting (both in‐person and virtual) included a flyer mailout to the project stakeholder list of individuals and organizations; placement of meeting signs in the neighborhoods in and around the project area; postings on social media sites (NextDoor, Facebook, and Twitter); and a media advisory. Public Comment Results Public comments were gathered in two ways: on paper during the in‐person public meeting on April 4, 2023 and online as part of the virtual public meeting that started on March 2. All comments were due on April 18. Both in‐person and online, meeting participants were asked to share their feedback in one open‐ended question: Do you have any comments or questions for the project team? The online version also included optional demographic questions. The online survey was open from March 2 – April 18 whereas the in‐person public meeting took place on one evening (April 4). A total of 187 comments were received during the comment period; 11 of those comments were gathered during the in‐person meeting while the remainder were submitted online. Overall there were 1,677 views of the virtual public meeting, 189 participated in …
04.2 - BSRB BCER Public Release Redacted 2023.12.08_Part7 — original pdf
E-3 - Mobility Committee Presentation - May 2023
04.3 - Barton Springs Bridge - drawings — original pdf
Barton Springs Road Bridge Preliminary Design - Bridge Architecture Design Report 12 August 2025 Contents This PDF is an interactive document. Click on each number to navigate to the corresponding section. The menu icon on the bottom left returns you to this Table of Contents Introduction Design Concept Cut Sheets About the Bridge Site Context About Austin Project Needs & Goals Overall Bridge Concept Details Lighting Concept Lighting Equipment Surface Material Wall Finish INTRODUCTION 01 Prepared for Ramsey CountyBarton Springs RoadBarton SpringsRoad BridgeZilker ParkColorado RiverBarton CreekBartonSpringsPoolDowntownAustin 01 / Introduction Barton Springs Bridge Background Built in 1925, the Barton Springs Road Bridge provides access over Barton Creek along Barton Creek Road at the entrance to Zilker Park. The bridge was widened to its current form in 1946, which includes two traffic lanes in each direction. The bridge also features narrow sidewalks along each side, guard rails and a sidewalk underneath. While the existing bridge is structurally in fair condition, many of its features are functionally obsolete and it requires replacement to ensure safety and longevity. Given that the existing bridge present mobility challenges for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians, this project will provide needed mobility enhancements for all users. Intersection improvements to nearby Barton Springs Road and Azie Morton Drive are necessary as part of this project. In November 2020, Austin voters approved $102 million for major infrastructure projects, with the possibility of allocating a portion of that funding to address the Barton Springs Road Bridge. In December 2023, Austin City Council officially recommended replacing the bridge and advanced the project to the design phase. The City of Austin received a $32 million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation in November 2024 to help fund construction of the new bridge. 4 AECOMPrepared for The City of Austin Longitudinal Beam - Exposed Rebar Spandrel Column - Spalling 01 / Introduction Condition Assessment • Deck (with integral longitudinal joint), floor beams, and spandrel columns exhibited the most degradation. • All structural components exhibited some degradation. • Rehabilitation for increased service life would need to remove deck, floor beams, and spandrel columns, stripping structure to arch ribs as a starting point. • These results remove Rehabilitation Option 1 as feasible alternative since that option was the “low-impact”, “preserve-structure” option. • Based on the above, we are now focused on Rehabilitation Option 2 and on potential bridge replacement options. 5 Longitudinal Beam - Exposed Rebar …
04.4 - Barton Springs Bridge - 2023 RCA — original pdf
City of Austin 301 W. Second Street Austin, TX Recommendation for Action File #: 23-3600, Agenda Item #: 79. 12/14/2023(cid:4) Posting Language Conduct a public hearing and approve the recommended alternative in the Preliminary Engineering Report to replace the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek. Lead Department Capital Delivery Services. Fiscal Note This item has no fiscal impact. For More Information: James Snow, Director, Capital Delivery Services, 512-974-9795; Eric Bailey, Interim Deputy Director, Capital Delivery Services, 512-974-7713; Paulinda Lanham, Capital Delivery Project Manager, Capital Delivery Services, 512-974-7974. Council Committee, Boards and Commission Action: November 10, 2022 - Update on the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek project to the Mobility Committee. Update only, no action taken. May 11, 2023 - Briefing on the Barton Springs Road Bridge project and mobility elements of the Zilker Park Vision Plan to the Mobility Committee. Briefing only, no action taken. October 27, 2023 - Briefing on the Barton Springs Road Bridge project to the Mobility Committee. Additional Backup Information: The Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek is located near the intersection of Azie Morton Road and Barton Springs Road. The location of the bridge, at the entrance to Zilker Park, is a focal point of key community events such as Austin City Limits Musical Festival, South-By-Southwest (SXSW) Conference and Music Festival, Barton Springs, Trail of Lights, and Blues on the Green. Barton Springs Road and the associated bridge is also a key connection for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access linking Mopac to downtown and the South Lamar/Congress Avenue corridors, as well as providing the primary northern entrance to the Zilker and Barton Hills neighborhoods via Azie Morton Road, located immediately east of the bridge. The full bridge replacement option provides the most cost-effective and the longest useful life The Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek requires rehabilitation or replacement. It was originally built in 1925 and was expanded on one side in 1946. Structurally it is in fair condition, however, the existing bridge dimensions, sidewalks, and bike lanes do not meet with current design standards. The roadway west of Azie Morton Road is not aligned with the roadway east of Azie Morton Road. The project will reduce congestion and provide benefits to the local neighborhoods, commuters (all travel modes), and local businesses, as well as Zilker Park users and event attendees. City of Austin Page 1 of 2 Printed on …
05.0 - 1010 E Cesar Chavez St Briefing - presentation_Part1 — original pdf
URTH CAFFÈ HLC -COMMISSION MTG April 8th, 2026 It is important to note that the intended use of the building and property has not changed; the property and building will function as a restaurant. The high- intensity operational needs of such a program placed cumulative stresses on the historic structure that it was never designed to handle. Over the years, these commercial requirements resulted in a level of internal deterioration that made total preservation a physical impossibility. Our primary objective is to reconstruct the building in a way that accommodates modern restaurant standards while maintaining the original historic detailing exactly as it was—without the threat of further damage. The evidence in this report supports the conclusion that the cumulative impact of previous "add-ons" and makeshift utility solutions compromised the structure to the point of being unsalvageable. We respectfully ask the Commission to evaluate this evidence in its entirety. It is our hope that, with a clear understanding of these unforeseen conditions, we can continue construction aligned in our shared goal of a resilient, historically faithful restoration. Thank you, Sarah Jonhson, AIA, (Architect) Ingrid Gonzalez Featherston, AIA, NOMA (Architect) Dear Members of the Historic Landmark Commission: This letter is intended to clarify the site conditions and field decisions that led to a greater degree of demolition than originally proposed during our 2024 presentation. First, we wish to acknowledge that the extent of the demolition exceeded initial expectations. However, the report below outlines the harsh structural realities discovered on-site that necessitated the difficult decision to retain a smaller percentage of the original envelope than planned. This report details the specific damage found on every demolished wall and the technical rationale behind those actions. We want to clarify that the sections currently remaining on-site should not be viewed as exempt from the systemic damage documented in this report. Rather, these sections were retained as part of a strategic, surgical effort to preserve specific components, with the ultimate goal of restoring the building to its full architectural glory. While a total preservation of the entire structure was our preferred approach, the extent of the systemic decay made such a path both structurally unsound and economically unfeasible. The team elected to focus preservation efforts on the primary, most significant facade. The other walls required reconstruction to properly integrate modern systems and ensure long-term viability. Our approach focuses on three key pillars: • Modern System Integration: …
05.0 - 1010 E Cesar Chavez St Briefing - presentation_Part2 — original pdf
GENERAL NOTES: 1. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. EXPLICIT DIMENSION SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALE. THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FORMATTED TO BE PRINTED ON 24” X 36” SHEET SIZES, DRAWINGS PRINTED AT OTHER SIZES ARE NOT NECESSARILY TO SCALE. 2. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL OTHER EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 3. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND THE FIELD CONDITIONS. IF IN THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, A STRUCTURAL ISSUE EXISTS WHICH DISAGREES WITH THAT AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STOP WORK AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR FAIL TO FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY ARISING THERE FROM. 4. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING AND OR NEW WORK IN PLACE BY THE CONTRACTOR’S OR SUBCONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 5. ALL NOTES ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL TRADES AND RESPECTIVE CONTRACTORS. ALL NOTES TO BE REVIEWED AND APPLIED TO RELATED BUILDING COMPONENTS. ALL SHEETS ARE TO BE REVIEWED AND ALL APPLICABLE NOTES TO BE APPLIED. BUILDING ELEVATION AND SECTION NOTES: 1. HATCH PATTERNS ARE REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY LOCATING MATERIALS AND MATERIAL SYSTEMS. THEY DO NOT INDICATE EXACT PANEL SIZES OR CONFIGURATIONS. 2. COORDINATE LOCATION OF WINDOW ANCHORS, SEALANT POSITION AND CONTINUITY AND COMPATIBILITY OF SEALANTS WITH ADJACENT WORK INCLUDING MATERIALS AND OTHER CONTIGUOUS SEALANTS. C L L I , E R U T C E T H C R A S U K J A F T T A M mf 900 EAST 6TH STREET SUITE 100 AUSTIN, TX 78702 TEL: 512.432.5137 www.mfarchitecture.com BUILDING INFORMATION CHAPTER 7 FIRE AND SMOKE PROTECTION FEATURES FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQ'S FOR EXTEROR WALLS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE (TABLE 705.5) WALL LOCATION EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH DIST TO PROP LINE 5<X<10 10<X<30' X<5' X>30' OCCUPANCY GROUP A-2 1 0 1 0 FIRE WINDOW ASSEMBLY FIRE PROTECTION RATINGS REF TABLE 716.1(3) TYPE OF WALL ASSEMBLY EXTERIOR WALLS REQ'D WALL ASSEMBLY RATING (HRS) 1 MIN FIRE WINDOW ASSEMBLY RATING (HRS) 3/4 FIRE RATED GLAZING MARKING OH-45 OR W-60 WALL PROPOSED TO BE REBUILT TO MATCH ORIGINAL SIDING NEW SIGNAGE BY OTHER WALL SCONCE PROPOSED AREA FOR SIGNAGE CP-3 7" / 1'-0" 7" / 1'-0" CP-3 " 2 / 1 0 1 - ' 1 / " 2 …